ATD 2013 Lineup Assassination Thread - Bob Cole Division

Count me as another guy who likes Kennedy on the 1st line. Like EB said, with Teeder there you can play that line for big minutes. As far as playmaking is concerned, they're likely going to be out there with Red Kelly a lot of the time, so he will contribute. I also think Keats' playmaking is overrated, and that he is more of a balanced scorer. If you check out my Frank Fredrickson bio, there's an analysis that Sturminator did a couple years ago that includes Keats and part of the conclusion is that the numbers don't back up Keats as a great playmaker. It could be due to some different use of the word "playmaker" back then, that some people seem to have uncovered.

Also, glad to see you and MB were able to work out a more fair deal.

I definitely agree with that. I would still say he's incline into playmaking, but he was not AS great of a playmaker, and quite a decent goalscorer.

Count me as another guy who likes Kennedy on the 1st line. Like EB said, with Teeder there you can play that line for big minutes. As far as playmaking is concerned, they're likely going to be out there with Red Kelly a lot of the time, so he will contribute. I also think Keats' playmaking is overrated, and that he is more of a balanced scorer. If you check out my Frank Fredrickson bio, there's an analysis that Sturminator did a couple years ago that includes Keats and part of the conclusion is that the numbers don't back up Keats as a great playmaker. It could be due to some different use of the word "playmaker" back then, that some people seem to have uncovered.

Interesting, the more I think about it the more I think I may load up on the 1st line. By going with an offensive minded 3rd line I can use the 2nd line as a line that can be used against first or 2nd lines as well.

By Keats being a more balanced offensive player, he will mesh better with Rousseau, and Ketas and Watson will have enough toughness and puck winning

Quote:

Also, glad to see you and MB were able to work out a more fair deal.

MB and I have had a great dialogue for the past 2-3 months a trade. I'm not happy with the slack his team is receiving, I will be in shock if his team doesn't finished top 2 in his division.

MB and I have had a great dialogue for the past 2-3 months a trade. I'm not happy with the slack his team is receiving, I will be in shock if his team doesn't finished top 2 in his division.

Well, to be honest, that first trade would have been horrendous for him. Eddie Gerard is a far more solid presence in the backend than Ken Reardon. Also, although you don't need a good backup, I think MB team is one team that needed one, and he got one of the best. I also made my analysis of his team after the trade. Go look it out.

Count me as another guy who likes Kennedy on the 1st line. Like EB said, with Teeder there you can play that line for big minutes. As far as playmaking is concerned, they're likely going to be out there with Red Kelly a lot of the time, so he will contribute. I also think Keats' playmaking is overrated, and that he is more of a balanced scorer. If you check out my Frank Fredrickson bio, there's an analysis that Sturminator did a couple years ago that includes Keats and part of the conclusion is that the numbers don't back up Keats as a great playmaker. His prior rep could be due to some different use of the word "playmaker" back then, that some people seem to have uncovered.

Also, glad to see you and MB were able to work out a more fair deal.

Statistically, Keats was a slightly better goal scorer than playmaker, but overall his offense is more that of an elite glue guy than an offensive catalyst.

Honestly, as much as it sucks, I think Henrik Sedin needs to center Charlie Conacher if you hope to get anything close to Charlie's best.

From what I've read, Conacher was somewhat lost without Joe Primeau's playmaking, and it makes sense - Conacher was something of a pure shooter, not much of a playmaker at all.

Ted Kennedy was a mega-intangibles guy, but I don't think he's the playmaker Conacher needs to get the most out of him. And Frank Mahovlich is another goal scorer himself.

Joe Primeau had 3 real "big" offensive seasons, and Conacher led the league in goals in every one of them(1931, 1932, 1934). But he still led the league in goals twice in 1935 and 1936 when Primeau's play began to fall off. The first in goals in 1936 appears especially impressive because Primeau had 17 points in 45 games and Busher Jackson had just 22 points in 44 games. But, the 1936 season does coincide with Bill Thoms' big year offensively, and I can't help but think maybe he moved to the top line alongside Conacher that year. It seems like his best years were Primeau's best years, but doesn't appear to have been incapable without him.

Joe Primeau had 3 real "big" offensive seasons, and Conacher led the league in goals in every one of them(1931, 1932, 1934). But he still led the league in goals twice in 1935 and 1936 when Primeau's play began to fall off. The first in goals in 1936 appears especially impressive because Primeau had 17 points in 45 games and Busher Jackson had just 22 points in 44 games. But, the 1936 season does coincide with Bill Thoms' big year offensively, and I can't help but think maybe he moved to the top line alongside Conacher that year. It seems like his best years were Primeau's best years, but doesn't appear to have been incapable without him.

Yes, in 1935-36, it appears that Thoms centered Conacher.

Here's one of the quotes I was looking for, funny enough from your own Joe Primeau bio:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conn Smythe

I could have found lots of guys to go with Joe Primeau, but he was the only centre who could make Conacher and Jackson click.

Just a note about Conacher: In Frank Selke's autobiography (which I recently bought at a used book store for $1), while he has plenty of compliments for Conacher, he describes Joe Primeau as being the real workhouse of the Kid Line. Basically he says that Primeau was a master at drawing away the two defencemen then passing the puck to Conacher or Jackson for an easy shot on goal.

I just thought it was interesting that since there was so much talk earlier in the voting about players like Esposito or Bossy having their goal totals boosted by their teammates, that maybe it applies to Conacher. After Primeau left the game, Conacher's numbers did take a nosedive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BM67

Conacher's production dropped more from injuries, than from a change in linemates. He played only 34 games over the next two seasons after Primeau left. Being a crease crasher when the nets didn't move was not good for your health.

Over the 7 seasons the Kid Line was together, Conacher only once played more games than Primeau, but Primeau only once out scored Conacher in points. In Primeau's last year, Conacher had more goals than Primeau had points.

Primeau might have been the key guy on the line, much like Olmstead was said to be the key guy on the top line in Montreal for much of the 50s, it is Conacher's health that was the main factor when the Kid Line struggled to produce in the playoffs. The Kid Line produced more points in the Final in Toronto's one Cup win than they did in their 3 Finals losses combined (16 to 9).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon

I seem to remember Conn Smythe saying basically the same thing in his autobiography.
...

Maybe Frank Selke and Conn Smythe were talking about Primeau's defensive ability being key to the line, so his linemates could cheat (Jackson was a notoriously poor defensive player and I doubt Charlie Conacher was much better). In that case, Ted Kennedy brings more than enough to the table. On the other hand, if they meant that Primeau's playmaking was key to the line, then I don't think Ted Kennedy is really the best fit.

Regardless, given Charlie Conacher's rather extreme goals to assists ratio (even for the era), I think getting him a more natural playmaking C would have been a better fit.

Maybe Frank Selke and Conn Smythe were talking about Primeau's defensive ability being key to the line, so his linemates could cheat (Jackson was a notoriously poor defensive player and I doubt Charlie Conacher was much better). In that case, Ted Kennedy brings more than enough to the table. On the other hand, if they meant that Primeau's playmaking was key to the line, then I don't think Ted Kennedy is really the best fit.

Regardless, given Charlie Conacher's rather extreme goals to assists ratio (even for the era), I think getting him a more natural playmaking C would have been a better fit.

From this portion:

Quote:

Over the 7 seasons the Kid Line was together, Conacher only once played more games than Primeau, but Primeau only once out scored Conacher in points. In Primeau's last year, Conacher had more goals than Primeau had points.

I really think you are overvaluing Primeau, especially if you are saying he has better playmaking then Kennedy.

If I need a playmaker like Primeau to play with Conacher I can slot in Sedin, but I feel as though any three of my top 3 centers can work with him. All things considered he also has Red Kelly feeding him passes as well.

I have some info to post on him. But overall he was an all around player who was massive for his era, smart defensively and an excellent skater.

He was a rushing defenseman, but he was also an excellent skater and good defensively - like Red Kelly. I don't think they are a terrible match, but I'm not sure you can get the most out two rushing guys by playing them together. Thoughts?

Where are you getting that he was massive? 5'10" and 170 lbs for his era is big, but not huge. A fair size comparison would be a guy like Dion Phaneuf.

He was a rushing defenseman, but he was also an excellent skater and good defensively - like Red Kelly. I don't think they are a terrible match, but I'm not sure you can get the most out two rushing guys by playing them together. Thoughts?

I realize that they both can rush the puck, but they are both strong enough defensively as well to cover if one does go for a rush. It has a lot more too, but it shows how defensive minded Grant was.

This article here is critical as it actually has Grant explain his thought process on playing defense:

Quote:

And that a forward who advances toward their goals will have to distinct men to pass instead of two men. One directly and close behind the other.

During a tussel behind or to the side of the goals, the point and cover point should never leave their positions vacant. If the one leaves his place, the other should remain in front, but never should both be away, because the absence of these men from their proper positions is the cause of more games being lost than any other fault them may commit.

That's a good article on Grant, but it actually helps show what my argument was. Both Grant and Kelly are responsible defensively - there's no question there. With both guys, however, their primary asset is their rushing abilities. Since they can't both rush at the same time, you're always going to waste part of what they brings. As I said, it's not a bad match, but you aren't getting full value.

As for Grant's size, however big you think Dion Phaneuf is, should be how big you think Grant is. I wouldn't calls Phaneuf "massive" or even "very large". He's bigger than average, but not by a whole lot.

That's a good article on Grant, but it actually helps show what my argument was. Both Grant and Kelly are responsible defensively - there's no question there. With both guys, however, their primary asset is their rushing abilities. Since they can't both rush at the same time, you're always going to waste part of what they brings. As I said, it's not a bad match, but you aren't getting full value.

Come on, we both know that this doesn't waste anything. There is only one puck in play so I don't see a scenerio where this will hurt them as a pairing at all. If anything it is a plus as they are both strong defensively, excellent skaters and can both rush the puck forcing opposing top lines to play well defensively against them.

When do both defenseman ever rush together at the same time anyways? Can you imagine the counterattack with both Red Kelly and Mike Grant on the ice together? Catching top lines on odd man rushes forcing them to think more defensively.

You are acting like I have Red Kelly paired with a one dimensional offensive guy who will be terrible at covering for him, this is clearly not the case.

Quote:

As for Grant's size, however big you think Dion Phaneuf is, should be how big you think Grant is. I wouldn't calls Phaneuf "massive" or even "very large". He's bigger than average, but not by a whole lot.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up Dion Phaneuf?

I remember you trying to sell Morenz and even Joliat as larger players due to era, so if that's the case then Grant (who was larger then both of them) and who played 20-30 years before them has to be painted with that same brush.

Come on, we both know that this doesn't waste anything. There is only one puck in play so I don't see a scenerio where this will hurt them as a pairing at all. If anything it is a plus as they are both strong defensively, excellent skaters and can both rush the puck forcing opposing top lines to play well defensively against them.

When do both defenseman ever rush together at the same time anyways? Can you imagine the counterattack with both Red Kelly and Mike Grant on the ice together? Catching top lines on odd man rushes forcing them to think more defensively.

You are acting like I have Red Kelly paired with a one dimensional offensive guy who will be terrible at covering for him, this is clearly not the case.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up Dion Phaneuf?

I remember you trying to sell Morenz and even Joliat as larger players due to era, so if that's the case then Grant (who was larger then both of them) and who played 20-30 years before them has to be painted with that same brush.

He's not trying to say they won't be able to cover for each other, he's saying that they each may not be able to rush the puck as many times a game as they want because the other guy will be rushing. I think this is a fair point.

On the other hand, I think yours is a good point also...having two rushing defensemen will make it harder for opponents to key on either of them individually.

I find it hard to believe anyone would try to pass of Joliat as large...Are you sure he just wasn't saying that Joliat is larger than his real life height and weight?

Come on, we both know that this doesn't waste anything. There is only one puck in play so I don't see a scenerio where this will hurt them as a pairing at all. If anything it is a plus as they are both strong defensively, excellent skaters and can both rush the puck forcing opposing top lines to play well defensively against them.

When do both defenseman ever rush together at the same time anyways? Can you imagine the counterattack with both Red Kelly and Mike Grant on the ice together? Catching top lines on odd man rushes forcing them to think more defensively.

You are acting like I have Red Kelly paired with a one dimensional offensive guy who will be terrible at covering for him, this is clearly not the case.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up Dion Phaneuf?

I remember you trying to sell Morenz and even Joliat as larger players due to era, so if that's the case then Grant (who was larger then both of them) and who played 20-30 years before them has to be painted with that same brush.

That's my point. They won't both rush at the same time. If you have Paul Coffey with Sergei Gonchar, they might both go at the same time, but that's worse than your situation.

There is only one puck, and there are only so many chances to jump into the offense. When those chances come up, one of your guys is going to have to stay back, which will waste his best asset.

As I said, it's not a terrible thing, but you aren't going to get full value out of that pair. The result will be less than the sum of each part, so to speak.

I'm doing the exact same thing for Mike Grant that I did for Morenz and Joliat. I'm even using the same formula. He's just not as big as you're selling him as. Compared to his peers, he was about as big as Dion Phaneuf is compared to his peers. Big but not overly so.

He's not trying to say they won't be able to cover for each other, he's saying that they each may not be able to rush the puck as many times a game as they want because the other guy will be rushing. I think this is a fair point.

On the other hand, I think yours is a good point also...having two rushing defensemen will make it harder for opponents to key on either of them individually.

I find it hard to believe anyone would try to pass of Joliat as large...Are you sure he just wasn't saying that Joliat is larger than his real life height and weight?

I think issues like this are not looked upon as highly as they should be in the ATD. Having a partner like Grant allows more room for Kelly to operate and vice versa, if teams could game plan against stopping Red Kelly from rushing the puck because his partner is no offensive threat at all that would be a large disadvantage to him.

Just so it's clear, I plan on using Kelly-Grant against top lines, and the game plan is too have a strong counter attack to force offensive players to perhaps play a little more cautiously in the offensive end.

Some of Kelly's lessons were not only what to do on the ice, but how to stay on the ice. "I had a temper. I had red hair," Kelly laughs. "I was the welterweight boxing champ at St. Mike's. I could take care of myself. Joe Primeau taught me you don't win games in the penalty box. You've got to stay on the ice. Players would try to get you off the ice sometimes but you're more valuable to a team when you're on the ice."

I think issues like this are not looked upon as highly as they should be in the ATD. Having a partner like Grant allows more room for Kelly to operate and vice versa, if teams could game plan against stopping Red Kelly from rushing the puck because his partner is no offensive threat at all that would be a large disadvantage to him.

It is a rare thing in NHL history for two puck-carrying defensemen to play together as a pairing, though maybe that's partly due to their scarcity relative to more defensive guys. You're definitely going to reach a point of diminishing returns somewhere. The question is just where.